Page 5 of 9

Re: Anybody concerned Tillerson is on the way out.

Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 5:00 pm
by RiverguyVT
Interrupting our program in progress for this important bulletin:

It is 12:00 noon and Rex Tilleraon is still in office. I repeat:
It is 12:00 noon and Rex Tilleraon is still in office.

Now, back to our program...

Re: Anybody concerned Tillerson is on the way out.

Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 5:08 pm
by HokieFanDC
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
HokieJoe wrote:JFC @this thread. Tillerson isn't on the way out. And yes, the State Department budget needs to be cut. We need to erase every bit of additional bloat that occurred while Odumbo was in office. And that's just to start.
Agree for the most part, although the cuts need to go further back than Obama. We're above $50B today, and have been between $20B and $45B for the 20 years prior to Obama, and above $50B since Obama. A good start would be getting below $40B, and then lower if possible.
This is hilarious. You've been gobsmacked at my suggestion that the State Department needs painful budget cuts, then you pretend to support a 20% cut to their budget at the end of the thread. I'm pretty sure every career bureaucrat in the State Department would consider a 20% budget cut the end of the world....
Yes, hilarious, you're making up shirt again, or you're just too dense to get it.
Nowhere have I said that cutting the state dept. isn't a good idea. And I have no issue with cutting a lot of it.
Not sure why that's so hard for you to understand. I'm gobsmacked at your continuous misstatement of what I've said numerous times.

Cutting the dept. by 20% doesn't have to be painful if you're cutting the 20% (or whatever the right number is) that is duplicative bloat. It is painful if you make cuts without figuring out what positions are important, which are not, and laying out a plan to cut the latter, and fill the former.

That's my issue, plain and simple. You're the one who, in your typical fashion, can't understand that and continues to make up arguments based on your lack of comprehension.
Is the point in the purse fight where you claim to actually have the opposite position you've argued against the entire time?
What position do you think I'm changing? I'm pretty sure you have it wrong, or you have no clue what you're talking about and you're just white knighting.

Re: Anybody concerned Tillerson is on the way out.

Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 5:10 pm
by awesome guy
HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
HokieJoe wrote:JFC @this thread. Tillerson isn't on the way out. And yes, the State Department budget needs to be cut. We need to erase every bit of additional bloat that occurred while Odumbo was in office. And that's just to start.
Agree for the most part, although the cuts need to go further back than Obama. We're above $50B today, and have been between $20B and $45B for the 20 years prior to Obama, and above $50B since Obama. A good start would be getting below $40B, and then lower if possible.
This is hilarious. You've been gobsmacked at my suggestion that the State Department needs painful budget cuts, then you pretend to support a 20% cut to their budget at the end of the thread. I'm pretty sure every career bureaucrat in the State Department would consider a 20% budget cut the end of the world....
Yes, hilarious, you're making up shirt again, or you're just too dense to get it.
Nowhere have I said that cutting the state dept. isn't a good idea. And I have no issue with cutting a lot of it.
Not sure why that's so hard for you to understand. I'm gobsmacked at your continuous misstatement of what I've said numerous times.

Cutting the dept. by 20% doesn't have to be painful if you're cutting the 20% (or whatever the right number is) that is duplicative bloat. It is painful if you make cuts without figuring out what positions are important, which are not, and laying out a plan to cut the latter, and fill the former.

That's my issue, plain and simple. You're the one who, in your typical fashion, can't understand that and continues to make up arguments based on your lack of comprehension.
Is the point in the purse fight where you claim to actually have the opposite position you've argued against the entire time?
What position do you think I'm changing? I'm pretty sure you have it wrong, or you have no clue what you're talking about and you're just white knighting.
Uh huh. I'll have you down for both cuts and no cuts to the DoS.

Re: Anybody concerned Tillerson is on the way out.

Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 5:16 pm
by USN_Hokie
HokieFanDC wrote: Yes, hilarious, you're making up shirt again, or you're just too dense to get it.
Nowhere have I said that cutting the state dept. isn't a good idea. And I have no issue with cutting a lot of it.
Not sure why that's so hard for you to understand. I'm gobsmacked at your continuous misstatement of what I've said numerous times.

Cutting the dept. by 20% doesn't have to be painful if you're cutting the 20% (or whatever the right number is) that is duplicative bloat. It is painful if you make cuts without figuring out what positions are important, which are not, and laying out a plan to cut the latter, and fill the former.

That's my issue, plain and simple. You're the one who, in your typical fashion, can't understand that and continues to make up arguments based on your lack of comprehension.
:lol:

DC has now pivoted the crux of his argument to the difference between "painful cuts" and "cutting it a lot."

Re: Anybody concerned Tillerson is on the way out.

Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 5:17 pm
by HokieFanDC
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote: Agree for the most part, although the cuts need to go further back than Obama. We're above $50B today, and have been between $20B and $45B for the 20 years prior to Obama, and above $50B since Obama. A good start would be getting below $40B, and then lower if possible.
This is hilarious. You've been gobsmacked at my suggestion that the State Department needs painful budget cuts, then you pretend to support a 20% cut to their budget at the end of the thread. I'm pretty sure every career bureaucrat in the State Department would consider a 20% budget cut the end of the world....
Yes, hilarious, you're making up shirt again, or you're just too dense to get it.
Nowhere have I said that cutting the state dept. isn't a good idea. And I have no issue with cutting a lot of it.
Not sure why that's so hard for you to understand. I'm gobsmacked at your continuous misstatement of what I've said numerous times.

Cutting the dept. by 20% doesn't have to be painful if you're cutting the 20% (or whatever the right number is) that is duplicative bloat. It is painful if you make cuts without figuring out what positions are important, which are not, and laying out a plan to cut the latter, and fill the former.

That's my issue, plain and simple. You're the one who, in your typical fashion, can't understand that and continues to make up arguments based on your lack of comprehension.
Is the point in the purse fight where you claim to actually have the opposite position you've argued against the entire time?
What position do you think I'm changing? I'm pretty sure you have it wrong, or you have no clue what you're talking about and you're just white knighting.
Uh huh. I'll have you down for both cuts and no cuts to the DoS.
Yep, you have it wrong.

Nowhere have I said that we shouldn't cut the DoS. And of course, I've said we should cut it numerous times.

Here are all my comments on the idea of cutting the DoS. Only a full blown idiot would claim that I have said we shouldn't cut the DoS.

"The grand idea that the dept. should shrink is fine, but not putting an organizational plan in place to make that happen, is pitiful."

“70,000 is a lot. But, what's the right number and where should the cuts be??”

“If you are just saying it can be smaller, I'm cool with that”

In response to this, "I do like your idea for reducing our State Department to be closer to that of a nation whose budget for their equivalent is miniscule compared to ours.", I said this, "Yeh, it's a good idea. Done properly, it could be awesome. Done the way it's being done, ridiculous."

“We've learned that I think the State Dept. has a lot of people, and that it can almost certainly use downsizing.”

“Agree for the most part, although the cuts need to go further back than Obama. We're above $50B today, and have been between $20B and $45B for the 20 years prior to Obama, and above $50B since Obama. A good start would be getting below $40B, and then lower if possible.”

Re: Anybody concerned Tillerson is on the way out.

Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 5:32 pm
by HokieFanDC
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote: Yes, hilarious, you're making up shirt again, or you're just too dense to get it.
Nowhere have I said that cutting the state dept. isn't a good idea. And I have no issue with cutting a lot of it.
Not sure why that's so hard for you to understand. I'm gobsmacked at your continuous misstatement of what I've said numerous times.

Cutting the dept. by 20% doesn't have to be painful if you're cutting the 20% (or whatever the right number is) that is duplicative bloat. It is painful if you make cuts without figuring out what positions are important, which are not, and laying out a plan to cut the latter, and fill the former.

That's my issue, plain and simple. You're the one who, in your typical fashion, can't understand that and continues to make up arguments based on your lack of comprehension.
:lol:

DC has now pivoted the crux of his argument to the difference between "painful cuts" and "cutting it a lot."
Seriously, you have no clue what you're talking about.

This is basic organizational efficiency. If an organization is overstaffed and bloated, there are positions that are not providing real value to the organization. Staffing creep happens all the time in large organizations.
Making cuts to that staffing can be done, and is done all the time, without majorly impacting the goals and duties of the organization. My argument has always been that making the cuts in a haphazard manner, which is what is being done, has a negative impact, ie "painful", and doing it the right way, will not.

Re: Anybody concerned Tillerson is on the way out.

Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 5:41 pm
by awesome guy
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote: Yes, hilarious, you're making up shirt again, or you're just too dense to get it.
Nowhere have I said that cutting the state dept. isn't a good idea. And I have no issue with cutting a lot of it.
Not sure why that's so hard for you to understand. I'm gobsmacked at your continuous misstatement of what I've said numerous times.

Cutting the dept. by 20% doesn't have to be painful if you're cutting the 20% (or whatever the right number is) that is duplicative bloat. It is painful if you make cuts without figuring out what positions are important, which are not, and laying out a plan to cut the latter, and fill the former.

That's my issue, plain and simple. You're the one who, in your typical fashion, can't understand that and continues to make up arguments based on your lack of comprehension.
[emoji38]

DC has now pivoted the crux of his argument to the difference between "painful cuts" and "cutting it a lot."
Seriously, you have no clue what you're talking about.

This is basic organizational efficiency. If an organization is overstaffed and bloated, there are positions that are not providing real value to the organization. Staffing creep happens all the time in large organizations.
Making cuts to that staffing can be done, and is done all the time, without majorly impacting the goals and duties of the organization. My argument has always been that making the cuts in a haphazard manner, which is what is being done, has a negative impact, ie "painful", and doing it the right way, will not.
Uh huhImage

Re: Anybody concerned Tillerson is on the way out.

Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:16 pm
by 133743Hokie
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote: Yes, hilarious, you're making up shirt again, or you're just too dense to get it.
Nowhere have I said that cutting the state dept. isn't a good idea. And I have no issue with cutting a lot of it.
Not sure why that's so hard for you to understand. I'm gobsmacked at your continuous misstatement of what I've said numerous times.

Cutting the dept. by 20% doesn't have to be painful if you're cutting the 20% (or whatever the right number is) that is duplicative bloat. It is painful if you make cuts without figuring out what positions are important, which are not, and laying out a plan to cut the latter, and fill the former.

That's my issue, plain and simple. You're the one who, in your typical fashion, can't understand that and continues to make up arguments based on your lack of comprehension.
:lol:

DC has now pivoted the crux of his argument to the difference between "painful cuts" and "cutting it a lot."
Seriously, you have no clue what you're talking about.

This is basic organizational efficiency. If an organization is overstaffed and bloated, there are positions that are not providing real value to the organization. Staffing creep happens all the time in large organizations.
Making cuts to that staffing can be done, and is done all the time, without majorly impacting the goals and duties of the organization. My argument has always been that making the cuts in a haphazard manner, which is what is being done, has a negative impact, ie "painful", and doing it the right way, will not.
Correct

Re: Anybody concerned Tillerson is on the way out.

Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 1:06 pm
by HooFighter
Image
Image

Re: Anybody concerned Tillerson is on the way out.

Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 1:15 pm
by awesome guy
[quote="HooFighter"][/quote]

Have you considered counseling for your TDS? You're just not making sense.

Re: Anybody concerned Tillerson is on the way out.

Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 1:18 pm
by ip_law-hokie
HooFighter wrote:Image
Image
Putin must have said it’s time to go.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Anybody concerned Tillerson is on the way out.

Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 1:21 pm
by awesome guy
ip_law-hokie wrote:Putin must have said it’s time to go.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, that's the ticket!

Re: Anybody concerned Tillerson is on the way out.

Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 1:24 pm
by nolanvt
More evidence of a stable administration.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Anybody concerned Tillerson is on the way out.

Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 1:32 pm
by RiverguyVT
RiverguyVT wrote:Interrupting our program in progress for this important bulletin:

It is 12:00 noon and Rex Tilleraon is still in office. I repeat:
It is 12:00 noon and Rex Tilleraon is still in office.

Now, back to our program...
It is 9:30 am, and he's gone!

Crap!
He was possibly my favorite person in this administration. Tell me we still have Mattis...please!

Mr Toad's Wild Ride continues.

(I was wondering..when Tilleraon learned of Nork stuff in the news)

Re: Anybody concerned Tillerson is on the way out.

Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 1:57 pm
by HooFighter
Great job of the WH staying on message today. Didn't want anyone talking about the findings from the House "panel" or the visit to California.

Re: Anybody concerned Tillerson is on the way out.

Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 2:05 pm
by awesome guy
HooFighter wrote:Great job of the WH staying on message today. Didn't want anyone talking about the findings from the House "panel" or the visit to California.

Yeah, that's it. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Re: Anybody concerned Tillerson is on the way out.

Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 2:12 pm
by ip_law-hokie
RiverguyVT wrote:
RiverguyVT wrote:Interrupting our program in progress for this important bulletin:

It is 12:00 noon and Rex Tilleraon is still in office. I repeat:
It is 12:00 noon and Rex Tilleraon is still in office.

Now, back to our program...
It is 9:30 am, and he's gone!

Crap!
He was possibly my favorite person in this administration. Tell me we still have Mattis...please!

Mr Toad's Wild Ride continues.

(I was wondering..when Tilleraon learned of Nork stuff in the news)
I liked Tillerson too. It's been said that Trump was initially going to go with Romney, but the Russians felt more comfortable with Tillerson, having dealt with him at Exxon.

Re: Anybody concerned Tillerson is on the way out.

Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 2:27 pm
by UpstateSCHokie
Doesn't bother me. Tillerson didn't really seem like a MAGA guy. As long as Stephen Miller & Mick Mulvaney are there, I'm good.

Re: Anybody concerned Tillerson is on the way out.

Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 2:39 pm
by HooFighter
Image

Re: Anybody concerned Tillerson is on the way out.

Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 3:01 pm
by HokieFanDC
UpstateSCHokie wrote:Doesn't bother me. Tillerson didn't really seem like a MAGA guy. As long as Stephen Miller & Mick Mulvaney are there, I'm good.

That might be the scariest thing I've read in the last 2 years.

Re: Anybody concerned Tillerson is on the way out.

Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 3:05 pm
by HokieJoe
HooFighter wrote:Image
Image

So, Tillerson is out three months after the original 'report' was reported. Am I to assume that this is supposed to exonerate the original false reports? If so, uhh, good sniffing Deputy Dog?

Re: Anybody concerned Tillerson is on the way out.

Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 3:14 pm
by RiverguyVT
ip_law-hokie wrote:
RiverguyVT wrote:
RiverguyVT wrote:Interrupting our program in progress for this important bulletin:

It is 12:00 noon and Rex Tilleraon is still in office. I repeat:
It is 12:00 noon and Rex Tilleraon is still in office.

Now, back to our program...
It is 9:30 am, and he's gone!

Crap!
He was possibly my favorite person in this administration. Tell me we still have Mattis...please!

Mr Toad's Wild Ride continues.

(I was wondering..when Tilleraon learned of Nork stuff in the news)
I liked Tillerson too. It's been said that Trump was initially going to go with Romney, but the Russians felt more comfortable with Tillerson, having dealt with him at Exxon.
I see what you did there!
:lol:

I really liked that he isn't a career pol. I liked his resume, his background, and apparent value set

Re: Anybody concerned Tillerson is on the way out.

Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 3:15 pm
by RiverguyVT
UpstateSCHokie wrote:Doesn't bother me. Tillerson didn't really seem like a MAGA guy. As long as Stephen Miller & Mick Mulvaney are there, I'm good.
The guy is more MAGA than Trump is, IMHO.
Literally, a Boy Scout

Re: Anybody concerned Tillerson is on the way out.

Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 3:17 pm
by RiverguyVT
HooFighter wrote:Image
So, does this mean Tillerson has gone from being Satan incarnate to being a great guy on all the Soros sites today? Or... must he disavow capitalism first?

Re: Anybody concerned Tillerson is on the way out.

Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 3:21 pm
by HooFighter
I think it just means that Donald Trump is a **** moron.